It’s time for U.S. to reverse Cuba embargo

The consummate politician, a leader reluctant to create more controversy when he already has a cupboard full, President Obama has made only minor changes to the nation’s wrong-headed Cuba policy.

He declined to go ahead and push Congress to lift the embargo against the small Caribbean nation, even though the policy is an antiquated holdover from the days of the Iron Curtain. That’s a bit of a disappointment, given the president’s clear-eyed and rational views on other foreign policy issues, from closing the horrendous Guantanamo Bay detention facility to initiating direct talks with Iran.

CYNTHIA TUCKER
MY OPINION

• E-mail Tucker

Recent columns:
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Fidel Castro is a brutal dictator who has imprisoned critics, repressed free speech and been accused of killing his rivals. He is also an unapologetic Communist whose central-planning dictates helped drive his nation’s economy to ruin. But the economic embargo, in place since 1962, has not had any noticeable effect on his regime’s ability to hold power. Indeed, it gives Castro and his brother, Raul, an excuse for the country’s poverty, which they blame on U.S. policies.

The best way to influence Cuba would be to allow more contact between the U.S. and the island, the same approach that Richard Nixon took toward China when he made his historic visit there in 1972. Why is that policy good for China, Iran and Syria but not for Cuba?

Obama’s new policy allows Cuban-Americans unlimited visits to their relatives and lifts caps on remittances they may send back to family members. It also allows telecommunications firms to seek business there, a move that could eventually open communications between Cuba and the outside world if Castro cooperates.

Julia Sweig, director of Latin studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, rightly described Obama’s policy changes as “teensy-weensy.” Cuba remains the only country on the planet that most Americans are forbidden to visit by U.S. government policy. It’s a foolish dictate that has remained in place because Florida, with its Castro-hating Cuban exiles and 27 electoral college votes, is a critical swing state in presidential contests.

But South Florida is changing. Younger Cuban Americans don’t hold the irrational animus toward Castro that their parents and grandparents did. Nor do they expect to return one day to rule the nation, a dream harbored by some older and wealthier exiles who fled Castro’s Cuba 50 years ago.

In 2007, for example, a poll by Florida International University found that nearly 65 percent of south Florida’s Cuban Americans supported talks with Cuba.

In fact, if Obama remains reluctant to go further, Congress may take the lead. Already, a bipartisan group is pushing for more substantial changes in policy. Last month, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and several colleagues proposed legislation that would open travel to Cuba for all Americans. Lugar has also suggested that Obama appoint a special envoy to reshape U.S. policy toward the country, a proposal the administration is believed to be considering. Several U.S. business groups are also interested in substantially easing the embargo because they believe the country would be a viable market for their goods.

Over the last decade, several U.S. delegations representing agricultural interests have visited Cuba, hoping to establish contacts that will be useful when the country is finally open for trade.

Cuba is ripe for economic development. Despite Castro’s glaring faults and many failures, he has given his countrymen broad access to education and medical care, so its workers are literate and reasonably healthy. The country is a better candidate for democratic-style institutions than, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, since it is not riven by feuding sects or ethnic groups.

It wouldn’t take much to shove Cuba toward a stable, democratic and friendly government. Lifting the embargo would start the tectonic plates moving.

— Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor.